NOAA is forging data to push man made global warming, so says a whistle blower.

While there is documented proof that climate change has occurred over the years, a whistleblower is claiming that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association is directly responsible for pushing the existence of man-made “global warming” by forging temperature data.

John Bates retired from National Climatic Data Center and he saying NOAA is faking numbers to support man made global warming. He says there is a 18
years pause that is being covered up by a Thomas Karl, he works for NOAA and is manipulating data to push man made global warming.

After retiring as a scientist at the National Climatic Data Center last year, John Bates emerged on the front of the “global warming” debate as a
whistleblower to cool the heated battle on man-made climate change by calling attention to the NOAA.

Bates said he decided to speak out after he read an article from the Washington Post titled, “Scientists Are Frantically Copying U.S. Climate data,
Fearing It Might Vanish Under Trump.” Bates saw this as a joke, having worked for the NCDC and reportedly seeing the fraud firsthand.

Bates accused Thomas Karl, the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pause buster” report of trying to “discredit” the temperature pause through
“flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

The chart shows the pause in global warming, this is what NOAA is trying to manipulate and hide.

He says there is a 18 years pause that is being covered up by a Thomas Karl, he works for NOAA and is manipulating data to push man made
global warming.

Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe
that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything
it was," he said.

One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be
enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing
to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Otto Edenhofer, former official on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told a Swiss newspaper while he was serving as a
co-chair on one of the IPCC's working group in 2010.

This isn't an isolated remark.

February 2015, Christina Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told a press conference in Brussels that the goal was to
"Intentionally transform the economic world model." She went on: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the
task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since
the industrial revolution."

So, you AGW cultists that says the science is proven because of the scientists behind it, here are some of them talking to you about the why.

So by all means listen... after all, you are the ones that say they know what they are talking about.

a reply to: GreyScale
It's expected that one provide links for their external quotes.

Edenhofer was talking about a policy (global trading) which does not exist. He's saying that any global environmental policy, by its very nature
becomes economic in nature but not because that is the intent. I'm confused though, he's talking about how such a policy would result in the wealth of
huge corporations being "redistributed" to less developed nations.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big
winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if
these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute
de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself
from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with
problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Yes, exactly. I am still waiting for those fossils of the mammoths driving those evil SUVs to be found at the end of the Younger Dryas period. It has
to be that. I mean we as humans know our world and the solar system with complete understanding right? It certainly couldn't be that big glowing orb
in the sky that would be causing temperature fluctuations. Or maybe the volcanoes of the past spewing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere,
greater on any scale that we humans could ever compete with.

It was us. We humans that have such power over our environment that we can cause global cooling ... errr I mean heating ... wait a second, what is it
this month? I have problems keeping up.

"You really have to provide the most objective view and let the policymakers decide from their role," Bates said. "I'm getting much more wary of
scientists growing into too much advocacy. I think there is certainly a role there, and yet people have to really examine themselves for their own
bias and be careful about that."http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

Please dont put any pressure on scientists who accept it
Its just not allowed

"the NOAA study relied on land data that were "experimental."Typically, NOAA officials can publish research that relies partially on
experimental data, as long as the data are properly identified, especially if there is an urgent situation that requires something to go out quickly
because it is related to human health, safety and the environment."http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

Please dont question anyone who tells you, or is implied they are smarter than you
again, its not allowed.

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything
it was,"http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

Please dont ask those in charge of the information to be open and honest with the data that is publicly funded
Its not easy to manipulate data thats on public record, if indeed its manipulated, but why withold it in the first place.
Secrets by their very nature are lies.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.